Safe Speed Forums

Which is why the site should not express or appear to express the opinion that it opposes the current legislation on mobile telephones.


Moderator message:
These posts have been split off following this one in that thread.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

, good for you steve, after all these years you have finally admitted this site is nothing to do with road safety, can you change the press release heading from "road safety charity" to "nothing to do with road safety, but the removal of cameras"

so mobile phones have nothing to do with road safety, neither does defective tyres, defective lights, unroadworty vehicles etc etc etc

_________________
now retired

"Introducing Safe Speed. Safe Speed is a serious road safety campaign..." (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/index1.html) does rather suggest that the campaign is about more than the use of speed cameras. Reading between the lines one could deduce that it purports to be, for want of a better phrase, a serious road safety campaign. And as such should be concerned with the effect of the use of mobile phones (and similar devices) on road safety

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It will be interesting, only mildly, to see how steve wriggles out of this gaffe.

The campaign is outlined here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html

And says in part:
Introduction
Many things about road safety in Britain are already "right". We are excellent at roads engineering, and vehicle safety improvements are driven by market forces and are also excellent. Most of our legislation is excellent.

But changes in the last decade or so have had a strong negative effect. We set out in this manifesto a list of fundamental recommendations focussed on what is wrong and how it must be changed.

Subjects areas that are NOT mentioned further in this manifesto, such as the basic driving test and drink drive legislation are adequate for the time being should be allowed to continue as they are.

We believe that the significant majority of drivers will perform better (in terms of crash avoidance) with positive messages and appropriate encouragement, while ever greater regulation is engendering poorer driving.

We believe that our road safety culture sets average driver quality and that average driver quality is highly significant in setting accident rates.

Primary overarching objectives
To recognise, develop and enhance the contribution of "road user care" to road safety.
To ensure that monitoring and reporting of road safety matters are truthful, accurate and never misleading nor oversimplified.
To identify, develop and encourage "policy" based road safety improvements.
To remove other interests from road safety objectives.
To ensure that the law is applied to traffic offences fairly, effectively and in line with both real and potential dangers...

Lots of wide road safety issues in the manifesto, perhaps steve hasn't read that part; it hasn't been updated for some time.

It would seem that the manifesto includes hand-held mobile use and safety related to that use as interests in "road safety" do include hand-held mobile use.

Talking of "gaffes", Greenshed, have you conveniently forgotten the one where you were in denial of the 85percentile rule...something that I would have thought that "road safety organisations", would have been aware of.....

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

It seems the usual detractors are out in force, and getting more desperate.

Did you see anything about HH phone use in the link you repeated, DCB? I'm sure you can see plenty about speed cameras and how those affect road safety. This question is actually quite pertinent:


You asked; your words; you got; end of!


Nothing of the sort was said or implied; your inference is wrong.
Speed cameras and the associated policy is detrimental to road safety, as shown in the linked campaign pages.

There isn’t anything about HH mobiles in the manifesto you linked either greenshed; any gaffe here evidently isn't mine!

I'm sure you will continue with your attempts at misrepresentation, which would be quite telling!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

"Admitted"? "Nothing"?

Come on CO, your just havin’ a laff now or taking the p ss.

We can all have light-hearted moments and use smilies to indicate such, but when you are trying to make a serious point at least be serious and get it right!

"NOTHING" to do with road safety If your comment was serious, your cred just dropped to absolute zero for me there unless you care to explain or elaborate???

"Nothing" the man said!

( I have another smilie I could have used but it would be censored )

I have not spent the last four years supporting "nothing"!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

say's who?

What complete bollix, you argue like at 12 year-old.

Prove it.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

That is the central thrust of the SafeSpeed campaign, of course. Good to see such a high standard of counter-argument, though

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Your statement is self-contained irony!

It is interesting to see you reply with something totally superfluous, more so when you have evaded my two previous responses to you in this thread (1, 2)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Typical Steve. As soon as he joins in the substantive issues are forgotten and the thread degenerates into personal abuse and bickering about said what to whom, who didn't reply to whose argument and who had who through the mails.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Another ironically superfluous post.

Typical DCB. Always trying to undermine the members of the forum; sometimes evading your own point.

Perhaps the issue isn't mine?
edited to add note for future reference: viewtopic.php?p=239859#p239859

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

That would be paranoia, Steve, but they probably are out to get you for your pedantic twaddle.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Steady on. You must realise that you and I have not yet reached the standard of 'always right' like our friend the moderator.

"..he twists, he turns.....he's right.......again'. Pathetic.

That is because we lack his incredible attention to (irrelevant) detail.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

It's amazing what becomes relevant when someone points out you have cocked-up.

It is also amazing that when asked a difficult question that is going to show an error that someone becomes forced to ask a meaningless and unconnected question in return. Usually pointing out that several similar questions posed in response have not been answered.

Do you realise that difficulties such as this posed by contributors are followed by a period of suspension or even a ban.

Pots, Kettles, Black!

How come on your Linkedin Profile you claimed your business was built up to a £1 million pound turnover, and yet the records at Companies House show a different story?

You claimed to be reducing accidents AT camera sites in Cumbria when in fact they had gone up?

You claimed that properly trained camera operators would not make mistakes with the LTI 20/20, yet in the Montgomery case the CSCP trained operator was shown to be waving it about like a kid with a water pistol?

Put your own house in order first!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

You would need to understand the accounting of that business; clearly you do not.

Clearly the casualties have reduced beyond the rate that was predicted or hoped for in 2002 to 2003 with casualty reduction achieved way beyond all set targets.

The operating technique produced no error in the speed reading.

I am satisfied with its order thanks.

The official Safe Speed stance has not been to 'oppose' the ban on HH. I have stated that more research is required to fully understand this whole area. Whilst distraction is a clear issue we do need to thoroughly understand conversation behaviours.
The forums are separate to the website and discussions on the forums are not that of the official word or opinion of the Safe Speed Campaign, the aim being to ensure that there is a platform available to openly and frankly discuss all issues.

As I have already suggested in the on-going thread far more research is required to fully understand 'conversation' and conversing while operating a vehicle, and all other aspects.
Informed opinions are only achievable with good thorough research.
I suspect that the current ban on HH use is a 'quick' reaction, in an attempt to see if that 'solves' the problem, but I would need to research this to be sure that was their intention.
Distraction when driving is not to be encouraged, and I think the ban on HH was hoped people would turn to HF devices, but IMHO that has not been as widespread, as they had perhaps hoped. Enough regulation (inc any & all enforcement) is only required to achieve the desired effect e.g. less accidents to people and property.
Those regulation/ enforcement or policy changes must be necessary, proportionate and appropriate. All policy changes need to be based upon sound engineering and good research, clearly showing that a problem exists (in the first place), and that the solution/s proposed is fully justified with the enforcement process clear.
One of the main issues that has arisen from this debate, is that when control of a vehicle is impaired through distraction, this is covered by existing policy and enforcement, making additional regulations (Laws) potentially un-necessary: 'for other interests from road safety objectives'.
Partly indicated by the lack of encouragement to improve behaviours, and the 'prosecution by use', alone. Also when incidents occur the information gathered to show precise 'phone use' data will be most telling. Looking thoroughly into the psychology of conversation and communication would be most helpful.
Once full research is available it may show that all mobile use is unacceptable, or perfectly feasible under certain circumstances, that certain people 'types' should or should not use HH or HF (etc.) and all the other possibilities!

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.